1: Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert “, including through tourism”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment adds tourism to the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence for strategic authorities.
My Lords, I am pleased to be the opening speaker on the first day of Report on the English devolution Bill. I begin by acknowledging the Government’s significant new amendment, Amendment 2, which adds “culture” to the list of “areas of competence”. This is a hugely important and very welcome step forward, and I thank the Government for addressing what has been a clear gap in the Bill. In doing so, I also want to recognise the work of my colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the Minister herself, her officials and others across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Griffin and Lady Prashar, whose efforts have helped bring this change about, and without whom this omission might well have remained.
The Minister will know that we would ideally have preferred a wording in Amendment 4. I will leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to explain the importance of the inclusion of the arts in this context, and to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, to speak to the significance of heritage in his amendment. In supporting Amendment 2, I also support the Government’s Amendment 42, which increases the number of commissioners that a mayor may appoint from seven to 10. I also support the related Amendments 43 and 47, which have now been superseded by that government amendment. This change is sensible and proportionate. If we are recognising additional areas of competence, it follows that mayors should have sufficient flexibility in their leadership structures to reflect those responsibilities, provide subject matter focus where needed, and ensure that new competencies are not merely symbolic but can be exercised effectively.
I turn now to my own amendment. I have brought Amendment 1 back on Report as I am seeking further clarity following the Minister’s answer in Committee, and because the Government’s new Amendment 2 raises related questions about how the framework of completeness will operate in practice. I am therefore grateful to the Local Government Association for its briefing and for its support of this amendment.
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing their Amendment 2, adding culture to the list of areas of competence, and say at the outset that I have no intention of taking my own amendment to a vote. The Minister has listened to many of our arguments in Committee and I think this will make a big difference. It is what much of the arts has been asking for. The glass then is considerably more than half full.
However, although I support Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would add “heritage” to the wording, ideally, I would have preferred the wording in my Amendment 4:
“the arts, culture and heritage”.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar for that amendment. The word “culture” on its own is nebulous so, as the Local Government Association recommends, “to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities can engage with the breadth and diversity of culture in their area, including the arts, heritage and creative industries, non-statutory guidance should be co-produced with the sector and published post-enactment to better define this area of competence”. Will the Government produce such guidance and, if so, what will the detail be and are they seeking input into that? The Minister used “arts, heritage and creative industries” as being included in “culture” in the all-Peers letter of 17 March, so what is the basis for that assertion?
It is the subsidised arts sector, alongside cultural services such as museums and libraries, which I most worry about being overlooked. New research by Equity shows that council arts funding in England fell by 61% between 2010 and 2024, so there is a huge amount of ground to be made up. There is the added concern, as Steve Mannix, CEO of the Mercury Theatre in Colchester, pointed out in Arts Professional back in January, that:
My Lords, I too am delighted that the Government have decided to bring forward this amendment to include culture as the eighth area of competence within the Bill. I hope that the term culture will encapsulate arts and heritage as well, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has argued. I regard this as a very significant and constructive step, and I too have been very pleased to work closely with colleagues across parties in developing amendments which have helped to bring the issue to the fore.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for the time and care she has taken to engage with us. I would also like to acknowledge the role played by Trevor MacFarlane and Culture Commons for the support they provided to us and across both Houses.
At Second Reading, I argued that devolution cannot succeed with structures which promote only growth—important though that is. Devolution will succeed only if people feel more connected to the places in which they live, and if they are able to participate and see themselves as part of shared civic and cultural life. On that, in turn, rests the strength of the place’s social and cultural fabric. In a society such as ours, the question is not whether we live together alongside difference; the real question is what holds us together. The answer is culture, which is fundamental. It is a thread which weaves difference into unity. Culture is the quiet architecture which shapes values and relationships.
As this agenda moves into implementation, there will be important questions to address about how local mayors will make this a reality, what guidance will be given, how we maintain the arm’s-length principle at the subregional level and how strategic authorities can add value rather than cut across the work local authorities are already delivering in this policy practice.
I am delighted that this has been included. I will not develop the arguments, but it is important to understand why culture is a social glue in building communities at a local level. Therefore, I commend the Government for bringing this forward.
My Lords, like others, I commend the Government for their Amendment 2. We had a good debate about this in Committee, with significant support from across your Lordships’ House for the Government to expand the list of strategic competences in this way. As I hope the Minister can hear, we are very glad that she has done so. As she can see from the other amendments tabled in this group, however, there remains enthusiasm for ensuring that we do not just look at culture but think of culture, heritage and the contribution that our creative industries can make across the board.
In Committee, the Minister argued that this was implicit in many of the other strategic competences. Indeed, when one looks down the list, one sees immediately the huge role that culture and heritage can play in skills and employment support, housing and strategic planning, economic development and regeneration, the environment and climate change and health and well-being. She was right to argue that culture and heritage should play a part in the work of the new authorities in tackling these, but I am very glad that there is further encouragement, because we know that not all local authorities have been as enlightened or have taken advantage of the opportunities that culture and heritage can bring.
As I said in Committee, when I had the pleasure of being the Arts and Heritage Minister, I was critical of local authorities—of all parties and at every tier—that were cutting their spending on culture and therefore missing out on savings in their health and well-being budgets, for instance, and missing out on opportunities for economic development. When one sees what is going on in some of the coastal towns around the Kent and Sussex coasts, such as Margate and Eastbourne, and when one looks at the rippling effect down the Tyne and up the north-east coast in towns such as Whitley Bay, one can see the huge value that arts, culture and heritage can play in delivering the priorities of local authorities, so I am glad that this nudge is being put in. However, I am curious to hear from the Minister why the Government have chosen their minimalist description of just “culture”, rather than some of the alternatives that we looked at in Committee and that other noble Lords have proposed.
My Lords, I was happy to co-sign the government’s amendment, which adds “culture” to the Bill, for one very good reason: I have always thought of myself as a practical politician. I declare an interest that I chair Brighton & Hove’s Seafront Development Board. For our purposes, regenerating our seafront is all about culture, heritage and the arts; these things come together. My understanding of the definition of “culture” in the context of the Bill is that it brings all those things together. We should thank the Government for having come up with this simple, effective and modest amendment, for which many of us have campaigned for a very long time. I do not want to anger the Whip by talking for very long, but it is important that we acknowledge the big step forward that the Government have made.
In the context of my own county of Sussex, it was a delight that the House approved the statutory instrument earlier today. For our purposes, one of the fastest areas of growth, particularly in the south, will be arts, culture, heritage and hospitality—it is the fastest growth sector in the country. This is therefore a very fortuitous moment. With the creation of the combined mayoral authorities and the move towards unitaries, this is a major shot in the arm for local economies.
My Lords, now that we are starting Report, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, just said. To me, the word “culture” means a lot of things: tourism relates to culture; heritage is part of culture; leisure can be part of culture; and the creative industries are certainly part of culture.
I commend the Minister for the decision that the Government have made to extend that list of competences, which is absolutely right. But whatever we say—or whatever the Government say—I suspect that the strategic authorities and mayors will say, “Well, this all interlinks, so let’s join it all together”. That is the role of the strategic authorities. So I welcome all this because it is helpful. All the contributions we had—from the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—have given us a dimension of what we mean in this debate.
However, I briefly repeat a note of caution that I raised in Committee: we would not want local authorities to think that somehow all these matters are transferred to the mayoral level. Heritage and culture—all these things—are actually very much a function of existing local government. With those words, I commend the Government for their decision.
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this opening group, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his amendment highlighting the importance of heritage. I also agree with my noble friend that the word “culture” can mean different things to different people, so could the Minister please explain to us whether this will be clarified in guidelines? It will be very important that it is clarified.
The debate today clearly identifies the importance attached by many noble Lords to areas such as tourism, culture and heritage. However, it has also brought into focus a more fundamental issue with the Bill as drafted. A central question remains: what, in practical terms, is actually being devolved here? What do these areas of competence mean in terms of real power, real responsibilities and real outcomes? The response to that uncertainty cannot simply be to continue adding to the list. If the framework is unclear, expanding it risks compounding the lack of clarity rather than resolving it. We risk creating a system that is broader on paper but no more certain in practice.
There is also a question of focus. Strategic authorities will need to prioritise and deliver effectively. Simply extending the list of competences, however well-intentioned, risks diluting that focus and creating expectations that may not be matched by the powers or resources available. That is not to diminish the importance of the sectors that we have just discussed; far from it. Tourism, culture—whatever that means—and heritage are clearly vital to many local economies and communities. But the issue before us is not whether these areas matter; it is whether this Bill provides a clear and coherent framework for devolution. At present, we believe that there is a risk that it does not. Before adding further competences, we should first be clear about the purpose and effect of those already in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point directly.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly for such a positive response to the changes brought forward in this group. I hope we continue the evening as we have started; that would be wonderful. I thank noble Lords for their insightful and continued engagement on this Bill, both through Committee and since then, in the various meetings we have held.
In response to those debates, last week the Government tabled a package of amendments that address a number of the points raised during Committee. As I have said before, this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition for devolution. It will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Whitehall to mayors, local leaders and communities, and deliver on the Government’s commitment to fit, decent and legal local government. The amendments the Government have brought forward continue in that spirit, and I look forward to debating them with noble Lords throughout Report.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Freyberg, for their comments. Government Amendment 2 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within Clause 2. Culture—and its associated sectors, the arts, heritage and the creative industries—has been a topic of considerable debate during the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful to all those who have participated, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for their constructive engagement and valuable contributions.
This Government and I personally believe that culture in its many forms—visual arts, music, theatre, museums, libraries, combined arts, digital media, literature and heritage—enriches our quality of life, supports economic growth, and strengthens social cohesion and pride in place. As your Lordships will know, it has always been the Government’s position that mayors and strategic authorities can, and should, support cultural initiatives. By including culture as a distinct area of competence, the Government are codifying that role in legislation; this is a clear signal of this Government’s commitment to the cultural life of our nation.
3:45 pm
Amendment 2 will enable mayors to appoint a commissioner for culture, should they so wish, or convene local partners and collaborate with neighbouring mayors on culture matters. Government Amendment 128 inserts a new subheading, “culture”, into Part 2. Clause 41, on encouragement of visitors and promotion of visitors, will be moved from the economic development and regeneration subheading to the new culture subheading. Although this amendment refines the Bill’s structure, promoting an area to visitors remains an effective way in which to boost economic development and regeneration.
I appreciate the rationale for Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I fear they would unintentionally narrow the scope of strategic authorities’ activities. Let me be clear: culture, as a broad term, will allow mayors to engage in any activity relating to arts and heritage.
20 of 257 shown
My amendment is narrow and practical. It simply clarifies that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it on the ground. The Local Government Association has been clear that, within the structure of the Bill, the most coherent statutory home for tourism is economic development and regeneration where it aligns with the visitor economy, place-making and local growth.
The Bill recognises this to some extent. Clause 41 extends powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors. As the Minister explained in Committee, combined authorities and combined county authorities may use these powers to support the visitor economy, host events and attract people to their areas. However, as the LGA has pointed out, that clause reflects a relatively narrow understanding of how tourism policy works in practice. In reality, the visitor economy is closely connected to transport, to regeneration and to wider economic strategy. Therefore, greater clarity in the competence framework would help authorities make full and confident use of their powers.
This is why I was somewhat surprised by the Government’s Amendment 128, which moves Clause 41 to a later part of the Bill. That change risks creating the impression that tourism is being treated as part of culture, rather than as a core element of economic development. Without explicit inclusion, tourism risks falling between stools: assumed but not fully recognised.
That matters in practice. Tourism is a major economic driver, as we know, and the Government’s decision to introduce powers for an overnight visitor levy reflects the importance of the visitor economy to local growth, regeneration and place-making. It also illustrates why tourism sits most naturally within economic development. The success of the visitor economy depends on the strength of the wider offer, including cultural and heritage assets, which attract people to the place in the first instance.
As these new levy powers develop, I hope that some of the funds raised will be used to sustain and improve that offer, since visitors are unlikely to come to theatres, museums, arts centres and historic sites if there has been no investment in them. All this underlines that tourism policy does not stand alone but must be planned alongside regeneration, transport, culture and local growth. Ensuring that tourism clearly sits within economic development would therefore help strategic authorities take that joined-up approach.
Against that background, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thinking. In particular, do they intend tourism to be understood primarily as part of economic development and regeneration, as local authorities currently treat it, or do they envisage it sitting alongside culture, following the restructuring in the Bill? Given the breadth of the competence framework, will the Government consider issuing non-statutory guidance after enactment, developed with local government and the sector, to clarify how these boundaries are intended to operate in practice?
My amendment does not seek to change the architecture of the Bill; it simply reflects how local government already works on the ground. For that reason, I hope the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on this point. I beg to move.
“As councils merge, a new narrative could take hold: ‘We only need one theatre/museum/gallery in the new area.’ This may be efficient on paper, but it is culturally and economically short-sighted”.
I hope that the Government’s amendment will help to counter that, but ultimately, of course, we need significantly more council funding of the arts.
It also worth pointing out that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, who led the Arts Council England review, said in relation to the Bill on 17 March at a Culture, Media and Sport Committee meeting:
“It is a recommendation that there should be a statutory duty to produce a cultural and art strategy”.
Later in the Bill, we will again discuss local growth plans, and I have retabled my amendment for cultural ecosystem plans. I mention that now only because, if we are talking about guidance for culture as an area of competence, it would also be useful to know what might be in the guidance in relation to the requirement for a strategy or a plan—although of course the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, used the word statutory.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said about tourism. Culture is not tourism. Spending on culture should be spending on the arts, and not on access roads leading to a cultural attraction, for instance.
As in Committee, my Amendments 43 and 47 are designed to provide a commissioner for arts, culture and heritage, but the Minister has rather leapfrogged over us by increasing the number of commissioners from seven to 10. The Minister’s Amendment 46 is in a later group, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what her expectations are for a commissioner for culture for each of the authorities.
I am grateful for the discussions a number of us have had with Culture Commons and for the support of the Local Government Association. In summary, I am very pleased that the Government have made culture an area of competence and look forward to hearing more of the detail.
I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Often, when people think about culture or heritage, they think of it solely as a subsidised sector. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is right to talk about the importance of that: this is where the new, the experimental, the avant-garde, and the works that we will come to love in years to come can first be tried. However, most theatres in this country are commercial rather than subsidised, and most of the live music venues that are struggling but surviving in our counties are small businesses. It is important to stress the commercial element of culture and heritage, and the symbiosis between the two. Most people going to the theatre do not know whether they are going to a subsidised theatre or a commercial theatre; they are just glad that there is one there that is putting on things that attract people and boost tourism.
While there is enthusiasm for the opportunities presented by the visitor levy that the Government are embracing, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others, there is concern that this could be spent on fixing potholes rather than fixing the deficits in cultural and heritage spending that we see in some local authorities. If the Minister has some comments to make on that at the end of this group, I know that would be welcomed. I commend the Minister for government Amendment 2, and I hope that, even at this late stage, she will look at some of the alternative wordings and have some words of reassurance for your Lordships.